Silvia Flores, 49, and her daughter, Jennifer, 23, were killed at around 5:40 PM on Monday, 5/19/14, at the intersection of Texas Ave. and Rose Blvd. They died in a 2013 Toyota Camry, and were impacted by a 2008 Nissan 350Z driven by Fizal Rahaman, 19, who had Franck Mission, 20, as a passenger. How:
The Camry was eastbound on Rose while the 350Z was southbound on Texas Ave. The Camry stopped at the stop sign before entering the intersection. Rahaman didn’t have a stop sign. The 350Z struck the Camry on its driver side. Both Flores’ died at the scene. Rahaman and Mission had minor injuries, and Rahaman supplied a voluntary blood sample. Troopers felt alcohol was not a factor in the crash. Witnesses stated the 350Z was apparently speeding (beyond the 35 mph limit).
Why:
This is another sad case resulting from speeding, which is implicated in 1 out of every 3 auto deaths in the US. While it does appear that the 350Z had the right of way, it is highly likely that the collision would not have occurred had the 350Z not been speeding.
The 2013 Camry weighs ~3258 lbs and has a “good” side score. It comes with head and torso side airbags in the front seats. Its structural subscore was “good” as well. In other words, relative to technology available today, this should have been a solid vehicle for a side impact. The 2008 350Z is closely related to the Infiniti G35. It weighs ~3344 lbs and would likely have a “good” frontal score if tested, based on its relation to the G35.
Given the likely speeds of the collision (I’ll estimate ~55 mph, or significantly above the 35 mph PSL), the collision likely imparted at least 458KJ of energy into the Camry / 350Z. The standard side impact test simulates 143KJ of energy (a 3300-lb sled impacting a vehicle at 31 mph). In other words, the Camry faced 320% of the force it would have experienced in the types of crashes cars are side rated for. It is sadly understandable that the victims succumbed to these forces.
Meanwhile, the 350Z was designed to perform well in a frontal impact test simulating 243KJ of energy (i.e., a 350Z impacting its twin at 40 mph). The 350Z’s occupants faced 188% of these forces. Their survival was practically a given, despite the significantly higher forces, and is a testament to the “good” frontal score, the presence of front airbags, and the occupants’ use of seat belts.
This is a sad and entirely preventable pair of deaths. Despite the fact that the victims were traveling in a safe, well-rated vehicle, the protective factors could not overcome the extremely high risk factors of speed, as well as a teenage driver behind the wheel of a high risk vehicle (the 350Z had the highest death rate of any vehicle at 148 in the most recent status report, and this collision indicates why–the people who drive it are highly likely to disregard speed limits).
The Clek Fllo remains one of the best options for rear-facing in the United States several years after its release.
2018 update: Once again, Clek has updated the Fllo in fabric only; it’s the same seat, and still one of the best 50 pounders on the market.
The Clek Fllo is a car seat I’ve been waiting to review for a long time. I’ve been a fan of the Clek line for years, starting with the Foonf, which was the first non-Diono car seat I purchased for extended rear-facing for my own children, and when I learned from Clek that the Fllo would be coming out, I sighed, opened my wallet, and prepared to review what I expected to be one of the four best car seats in the United States for rear-facing (alongside the Foonf, Rainier, and Pacifica). My full review is below, and you can buy the Clek Fllo here.
Clek Fllo – Is it worth it?
It’s expensive, but yes, it’s still worth it.
The Clek Fllo, as noted above, is the newest baby from Canadian car seat wonder Clek, and follows in the footsteps of the highly regarded Foonf. However, it stands on its own merits and is poised to be one of the most impressive seats on the market. It’s a convertible car seat, which means it can be used in two configurations, including as a rear-facing infant seat, and as a forward-facing seat. If you want to know if it’s worth it right now without reading the rest of the review, I’ll spare you the trouble: yes, it’s worth it.
Rear-facing is the main reason to buy the Fllo, and it does a better job at it than almost any other seat on the market.
Rear-facing: 14-50 pounds, and 25-43″ in height. Your child should be able to sit upright without assistance, which typically isn’t reached by most infants until after 6 months, and his or her head should not reach past 1″ below the top of the headrest.
Note: Using the Clek Infant-thingy infant insert reduces the rear-facing weight limit to 5 pounds and overrides the need for your infant to be able to sit upright without assistance.
Like the Foonf, the Fllo is now one of the best seats for making sure kids actually reach the useful limits of the seat, as it measures around 26.5″ in shell height when the headrest is extended to its fullest position.
Most seats top out at 23″ or 24″ in shoulder height, which means a lot of children will outgrow them by weight before doing so by height. Clek studied the competition, realized that most car seat manufacturers still hadn’t made significant strides here, and kept the Fllo’s height limit identical to that of the Foonf’s. I can’t say I blame them.
While you can forward-face legally with the Fllo from 1 onward, it’s best to hold off as long as possible.
Forward-facing: 20-65 pounds, and 30-49″ in height. Your child should be at least 1, and it’s recommended that s/he is at least 2. Of course, research into car safety indicates children should remain rear-facing for as long as possible (the average is 4 years in Sweden, which posts the lowest child auto fatality rate on Earth), and after rear-facing, the child should remain forward-facing as long as possible. Norway followed Sweden’s example, and they now lose fewer children per capita to car trauma than nearly any other nation on the face of the earth–aside from Sweden, of course.
Dimensions of the Clek Fllo – Height & Weight
Compared to the Foonf, the Fllo is lighter–much lighter–while remaining just as narrow.
Here are where you start to see some differences when comparing the Clek Fllo to the Clek Foonf. The seat is 16.9″ wide at its widest point, which is a hair narrower than the Foonf, and only 13″ wide where installed at the base. There are even more significant differences in weight, which I love. The seat weighs 25 pounds when rear-facing. It weighs a delicious 24 pounds when installed forward-facing.
The front/back length when rear-facing is 29 inches without the anti-rebound bar and 32.5 inches with it. The seat height when rear-facing is shorter at 23.5 inches compared to 25.75 in the Foonf, and the forward-facing seat height is 26-30.5 inches, which is again shorter than the 28.25-32.5 in the Foonf.
Using the Clek Fllo – Unboxing, Kid Approved
The Fllo will fit babies with the infant thingy insert, but it’ll also fit big kids–you can rear-face as long as 6, depending on your child’s height and weight.
Let’s be honest: part of why I bought the original Foonf was because of how beefy it looked. It’s a serious seat, and I wanted the best for my kids. Of course, the 50 pound ERF limit helped, as at that point, there weren’t any other options in the US that hit that point. Things are a bit better now, but the fact remains that a seat that looks solid while having the stats to back it up is going to convince more people on a gut level, and that’s the case with the Fllo.
It still has that slick fighter pilot ejection seat look that only Clek seems to conjure up, with a new palette of crazy colors and patterns. I originally ordered my seat in Drift, and then changed my mind when I was offered the chance to pick up a Fllo in ink for a bit cheaper (blue being my favorite color).
Crossed legs are comfortable for kids; don’t let them discourage you from continuing to rear-face.
As with the Foonf, you’re going to need to devote at least a few minutes to putting it together once you get it out of the box. However, once you get it set up, it looks good. Really good. So good my daughter (not pictured) was curious enough when she saw me installing it to ask “is this my new car seat? It looks like the other one, but…cooler.”
There you have it. Kid approved. It’s not exactly what I mean when I say parents buy these seats for their kids, but it’s a nice bonus.
Speaking about my daughter, something she enjoyed about the Foonf was the height it gave her when rear-facing. She found it quite entertaining to be able to look easily out while we went on the occasional road trip. The Fllo is similar in that it offers the ability to look out and about, but Clek specifically designed it to have a lower profile so parents would have better visibility, and quite frankly, I think they made the right decision. It’s much easier to see behind it than it was with the Foonf.
Don’t Forget the Anti-Rebound Bar
The Fllo includes an anti-rebound bar normally only seen on European car seats.
As with the Foonf, when installing the Fllo, remember that you need to install it with the steel anti-rebound bar while rear-facing, and that you should use the tether only when forward-facing. The steel anti-rebound bar, as its name suggests, is designed to reduce the rebound, or rotational motion, of the seat during a collision, absorbing energy that would otherwise go into the child.
This ideally keeps your child’s head from impacting anything besides the seat of the car itself if you’re unfortunate enough to get into a collision, which is why we buy these seats to begin with. The more forces you can reduce in a crash, the better, and as with the Foonf, Clek provides a video of their seat being crash tested in a side impact. Again, it would be nice to have the numbers regarding the forces involved, since I analyze those all day long with crash test dummies when looking at car safety tests, but it’s still a nice touch to show that they actually do test these seats beyond the marginal government requirements.
The Fllo is Lighter – Much Lighter – Than the Foonf
The lighter weight of the Fllo compared to the Foonf makes it a much more practical choice for moving from one vehicle to another or taking along on vacations.
Much of the basic elements between the Fllo and Foonf are the same, but the weight difference is not. This seat is so much lighter! I didn’t think 13 pounds could make such a difference, but the fact that the Fllo weighs 13 less when rear-facing than the Foonf is enough for me to recommend it over the Foonf if deciding between the two. The fact that it weighs 9 pounds less when forward-facing and is shorter in both forward and rear-facing configurations is just icing on the cake. I love, love, love the lighter weight and lower profile of the Fllo. It’s far easier to take along on vacations or in taxis and Ubers (and remember, you do need car seats in taxis and Ubers).
What else can I say? It’s a great seat. Oh, tether all the time when you’re forward-facing as recommended by Clek. Unfortunately, you still can’t tether while rear-facing, but maybe that will change someday. The seat fabrics feel softer than they do in the Foonf, and my daughter confirmed that on a few drives. We’ve only had the chance to take it on one flight so far, but it was a rather anti-climactic experience, since it basically behaved the same way as the Foonf except that it weighed less.
The Fllo is FAA Approved (Fit for Air Travel)
The airplane installation is pretty straightforward. Keep in mind that it’s not likely to fit in the X-ray systems at most terminals, so you’ll want to leave a bit of extra time for being screened manually. Similarly, in most smaller and mid-sized jets, you aren’t going to get it to fit in the aisles, so you’ll need to be prepared to hoist it above them. However, the Fllo will fit the actual airplane seat well. Don’t even bother trying to fit it in the storage compartments above; that’s just an exercise in frustration unless you’re in first class.
Besides that fact, the Fllo also features crumple zones through its Energy-Absorbing Crumple Technology, or EACT safety system, designed to reduce the forces in frontal collisions. There are also metal (e.g., steel) substructures and foam on the sides to reduce forces from side impacts. As I mentioned before, the anti-rebound bar is designed to keep the seat more stable in a collision by keeping the seat from rotating as much, reducing tensional forces. All of these are good things.
Enjoy the Shell Height (and the Extra Time it Gives)
3 across car seat installations are about as easy as they can get when using 3 Fllos (or Foonfs).
Something else I love about the Fllo, as I mentioned above, is the 26.5″ rear-facing shell height measurement. Many children outgrow their seats by height before weight, which means that in some seats, you don’t get as much RF time as you otherwise would expect; this is a problem with a number of Britax seats, although it is no longer going to be an issue with the newest Britax ClickTight convertible seats. Clek designed the Fllo smartly and as a result, kids actually have a better chance of reaching past 40 pounds with it than they would with several other seats.
Finally, as noted above, the Fllo is also simply an easier seat to install than most, due to its super narrow width of 16.9 inches. That means it’s actually possible to install 3 across in a number of smaller vehicles. Wider seats restrict your vehicle options, and of course, it’s much more expensive to buy a new vehicle than a new car seat.
Final Thoughts – Go With the Fllo?
In conclusion, just as I wouldn’t call the Foonf the best car seat ever, I’m not going to say the Fllo is the best car seat in the history of car seats, as there isn’t one seat that does everything perfectly. Once again, I wish you could RF younger infants with the Fllo out of the box; be cause of its lower weight limit, you do need to wait for several months until your little one reaches the lower weight limits and can also sit up unassisted (unless you use the infant insert). However, for what it does–provide nearly-unparalleled RF abilities by weight–it has very few equals (namely, the Clek Foonf, the Diono Rainier, the Graco Extend2Fit, the Graco Extend2Fit 3-in-1, the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, the Nuna Rava, the Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+, and the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air). And it’s lighter than the Foonf while being easier to 3 across than any other car seat listed above. In that sense, it has no equals.
The Clek Fllo is an amazingly safe seat that can be fit in just about any vehicle while reassuring you as a parent that you have literally done everything possible to transport your child safely. Along with the Rainier and Pacifica, this is one of only four seats I would unequivocally trust my children in while rear-facing. Which is why when my daughter asked if this was going to be her new car seat (at least when riding with dad), I had to say yes.
Something I’ve learned over the last several years of looking into crashes is that there are a number of persistent myths floating around the real and online world related to car safety, and one of the most persistent ones is that old cars–and I mean really old, like vintage old cars–were safer than new ones. According to the myth, old cars had steel and things like that, while new cars have airbags and crumple and just aren’t as safe. In fact, some people go as far as to say that the reason new cars have airbags, crumple zones, and plastic parts is because they aren’t as safe.
It sounds good. The problem is that it just isn’t true.
The truth is that new cars are safer than they’ve ever been in the history of the automobile. Classic cars do crumple, and tend to crumple the passenger compartments into the passengers, which is incompatible with life. When they don’t crumple, they tend to transfer much of the force of the collision through the body and into the passenger compartment, where they turn the occupants into shock absorbers with life-ending results.
This video from the IIHS shows a moderate overlap frontal crash test between a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air at 40 mph. Both are typical examples of midsized cars from now and way back when, respectively. Notice the lack of seat belt use in the Bel Air? It’s because those weren’t required in the United States until the late 1960s.
Play through the whole crash in slow motion. Note how the Malibu driver simply bounes into the airbag, well restrained, before resuming position. He or she would have survived that collision, and likely done so without significant injury. In comparison, the Bel Air driver would have died multiple times over. Note some of the intangibles, such as how the Bel Air driver contacted the steering wheel (instant brain damage, if not outright death) before bouncing into the roof (more brain damage and a broken neck, if not death).
Old cars are deathtraps. New cars are much safer. Friends don’t let friends drive classic cars.
Lakai Kirk, 4, died Sunday 4/6/14 around 3:30 PM on Highway 121 to the west of Napa, CA. He was in a 2011 Chevrolet Equinox along with his mother, Ariel Kirk, 25, and Flavio Castellanos, 23. They collided with a 2012 Lexus RX450 containing Cindy Pawlcyn, 58, a local chef, and John Watanabe, 66, her husband. All of the adults survived, with Cindy receiving moderate injuries, Watanabe with minor injuries, major injuries for Ariel, and moderate injuries for Flavio. How:
The Equinox was northbound on H 121 and crossed leftward over the center line into oncoming traffic, impacting a southbound RX450. Both vehicles obeyed the 55 mph speed limit. Kirk received on-site CPR before being airlifted with his mother. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. Kirk was in a backless booster seat in the back and was unconscious after the collision. News reports suggested the driver of the Equinox may have fallen asleep while driving. Police indicated very little braking occurred and that the vehicles impacted almost directly on license plates, suggesting a nearly complete head on collision. Furthermore, the Equinox attempted to correct at the last moment, but the Lexus had made the same correction attempt, resulting in the collision. Why: This case, sadly, appears to have occurred due to distracted driving–specifically, one of the drivers may have fallen asleep behind the wheel. Fatigue significantly increases one’s odds of being involved in a fatal collision, although such cases typically occur at night rather than during the day. What makes this case particularly tragic, however, is that the child’s death was likely preventable.
Looking at the physics of the crash, every occupant should have lived, including the child, had he been properly restrained in a rear facing car seat. The 2011 Equinox weighs up to 4189 lbs in the 6-cylinder AWD configuration and has a “good” frontal score. It was impacted by a 2012 RX450, which weighs up to 4392 lbs, or 105% of the Equinox’s weight. These differences were negligible. For our purposes, the vehicles crashed into their twins at high speed, so let’s just look at the forces imparted on the vehicle with fatalities–the Equinox.
Given the likely speeds of the collision (~55 mph), the Lexus likely imparted at least 602KJ of energy into the Equinox. The Equinox frontal impact test simulates 304KJ of energy (an Equinox impacting another at 40 mph). In other words, the Equinox occupants faced 198% of the force they’d have experienced in the type of crash it was rated for. These were tremendous forces, but they were survivable ones. This is evident not only based on the high rate of frontal impact survivors with forces below the 200% threshold in other cases I’ve looked at, but in this case based on the intact A-frame and passenger survival space evident in the photos. Had the child been properly restrained in a rear facing seat or in a forward-facing harness, he would possibly have survived these forces. The fact that every properly restrained individual in both vehicles did survive is additional evidence that the collision was survivable.
This was ultimately a preventable tragedy. The collision might not have occurred had the Equinox stayed in its lane, but the death might not have occurred had the child been properly restrained. Every child who weighs less than 50 lbs should ideally be sitting in a rear facing car seat, provided he or she fits the height limits. If that is not possible, forward-face instead of booster until it’s no longer possible, or until a child is at least 8.
Car safety is about more than driving safely and choosing safe cars, although these make up huge parts of the equation. If you have children, your use of a safe car seat is also very important. As a result, I’ve decided to put together a series of guides regarding how well particular car seats fit particular cars. I’m going to emphasize successful 3 across installations and also try to provide information about how well seats puzzle, or fit, together. This guide focuses on the Toyota Camry, the single most popular car in the United States for decades on end. It competes with cars like the Honda Accord, Ford Fusion, and Volkswagen Passat as a safe and functional family vehicle. Let’s see how it does when it comes to 3 across car seat installations.
However, for this information to be helpful, you need to know if a particular car seat will fit in your particular vehicle. Here are my experiences fitting a range of seats inside various years of the Toyota Camry. I’ll periodically update each page as I try more seats in more positions.You can access the complete 3 across guide for every vehicle here and the complete list of recommended seats here. 3 across car seat images are courtesy of Wikipedia.
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Toyota Camry (XV50) Guaranteed 3 across installations:
The current generation Camry is 189 inches long and 72 inches wide, which is identical to the length and width of the prior generation. As a result, you generally expect seats from the previous generation to work in the current generation, and vice versa.
Keep in mind that the base of the Snugride 30 will not work easily in the outboard seats unless LATCH is used. However, to make 3 across feasible, you will need a seat belt installation. Keep in mind that the Snugride 35 base will work well when installed outboard with seat belts, so I’d suggest either buying a Snugride 35 if looking for an infant seat for a 3 across in a Camry or at least buying the Snugride 35 base, which is compatible with the Snugride 30.
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Toyota Camry (XV40) Guaranteed 3 across installations:
The 2007-2011 generation Camry is 189 inches long and 72 inches wide, which is identical to the length and width of the current generation. As a result, you generally expect seats from the current generation to work in this generation, and vice versa.
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Toyota Camry (XV30) Guaranteed 3 across installations:
This generation Camry is 189 inches long and 71 inches wide, or 1 inch narrower than the generation that comes after it. Car seat installation possibilities will be rather similar as a result, although you’ll have a bit less room to work with. Remember to use your seat belts instead of your LATCH anchors to make the most of your space.
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Toyota Camry (XV20) Guaranteed 3 across installations:
This generation Camry is 188 inches long and 70 inches wide, or 1 inch narrower and shorter than the generation that comes after it. Car seat installation possibilities will be rather similar as a result, although you’ll have a bit less room to work with. Remember to use your seat belts instead of your LATCH anchors to make the most of your space.
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 Toyota Camry Guaranteed 3 across installations: Clek Fllo (x3).
This generation Camry is 188 inches long and 70 inches wide, which is identical to the generation that comes after it. As a result, whichever car seats you can fit into a ’97-’01 Camry are almost certain to fit into a ’92-’96 Camry and vice versa. You won’t have LATCH as an option during these model years, which means it will be easy to use your seat belts by default!
35,000 Americans will die this year on the road. You don't have to be one of them. A car seat and car safety blog to promote best practices for families.
Who:
If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can 
Who:
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Toyota Camry (XV50)
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Toyota Camry (XV30)
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Toyota Camry (XV20)
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 Toyota Camry